•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Two recent decisions, one in the Ninth Circuit and one in a Massachusetts District Court, have erroneously held that mandatory Title VII pre-dispute arbitration clauses are unenforceable under the Civil Rights Act of 1991.' A statutory construction analysis of the 1991 Civil Rights Act demonstrates that Congress did not intend to abolish the use of such clauses. Instead, Congress intended to support the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration as a valid and useful forum for the resolution of disputes arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The purpose of the following Article is twofold. First, this Article will present a persuasive critique of the arguments presented in the Duffield and Rosenberg decisions and offer an alternative interpretation of the statutory intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Second, this Article will demonstrate that enforcement of predispute agreements to arbitrate statutory employment claims is in the best interest of both the public and the parties involved in employment disputes.

Share

COinS
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.